DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 55-74 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 7/14/26 and 4/13/26. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 55-74 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12180101. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reasons are as follows:
· Both sets of claims refer to process for preparing a reducing gas and differ only in the steps of producing a reducing liquid wherein. The instant claims recite an oxidation reduction potential value of about -100 mV or more negative (see patented claim 1 and instant claim 65. The same compositions and/or derivatives thereof are used or overlap in scope. Therefore the compositions recited in the claims are obvious variation of each other. of each other.
· In view of the foregoing, the patented claims and the current application claims are obvious variations.
Claims 55-74 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 58 and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 12180101. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The reasons are as follows:
· Both sets of claims refer to process for preparing a reducing gas and differ only in the steps of producing a reducing liquid wherein. The instant claims recite preparing an activator, wherein the activator comprises potassium hydrate, magnesium sulfate, sodium oxidanide, and an alkaline cationic silicate;b. introducing the activator into a reaction chamber of a reactor, wherein the reactor is configured to produce an electrolytic reaction;c. adding water to the reaction chamber;d. dissolving the activator in the water to produce a water-activator mixture; and applying a direct current to the water-activator mixture to produce the reducing gas. Although the steps as recited by the instant claims differ the result having the same oxidation reduction potential value of -100 mV or more negative is the same (see claim 58 of the copending and claim 1 of instant claim 65. The same compositions and/or derivatives thereof are used or overlap in scope. Therefore, the compositions recited in the claims are obvious variation of each other. of each other.
· In view of the foregoing, the copending application claims and the current application claims are obvious variations.
The closest prior art is by Imaoka et al. (US 6290777) and Masashiro (JP 2006169489). However, both failed to teach infusing a metasilicate into the liquid to reduce the liquid.
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 09/10/26
Prosecution Insights